USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 96-1180

JOSEPH D. FORD, JR., AND DEBORAH FORD,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

JOSEPH D. FORD AND CME ASSOCIATES, INC.,

AS IT IS THE GENERAL PARTNER OF CME GROUP, LTD.,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

____________________

and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

_____________

____________________

E. James Veara with whom Sarah A. Turano-Flores and Zisson &

______________
______________________
________
Veara were on brief for appellants.
_____
Judith G. Dein, with whom James J. Arguin, Warner & Stackpole.
______________
_______________ ___________________
LLP
___
and Christopher Nolland were on brief for appellee.
___________________

____________________

November 7, 1996
____________________

Per Curiam.

Upon careful consideration of the

__________

arguments, the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment

of the district court for essentially the reasons set out in

the district court's opinion.

Appellants argue that the district court erred by

refusing to impose a constructive trust based on the theory

of unjust enrichment.

They also insist that Joseph D. Ford,

Jr.'s wife, Deborah, has presented proof of her own equitable

ownership of the contested premises sufficient to undercut

the legal effect of her husband's individual quitclaim

conveyance.

The lower court, however, grasped the

appellants' basic contentions and ruled correctly as to each.

We see no viable theory under which Joseph D. Ford, Jr. and

Deborah Ford can successfully claim an equitable interest in

the property, however labeled, especially against CME, a

creditor of Joseph D. Ford, Sr. and a mortgagee that was not

privy to any alleged private understandings between the

junior and senior Fords.

Joseph D. Ford, Jr. deeded the property back to his

father as part of a comprehensive settlement by quitclaim

deed which, under Massachusetts law, conveys all right, title

and interest in property.

Fales v. Glass, 9 Mass. App. Ct.

_____
_____

570, 573-74, 402 N.E. 2d 1100, 1102-03 (1980).

Nothing in

the Stipulation Agreement, including the Fords' general

reservation of rights, gave Joseph D. Ford, Jr. a right to

-2-

repudiate the deed which it authorized him to record.

Ford, Jr. wished

Had

to preserve a right to pursue his present

claims, he should have made express provision to do so

instead of deeding all his interest back to his father.

There is, moreover, as the district court stated,

insufficient evidence to support Deborah Ford's claim that

she acquired an equitable interest in the property such as

would permit her to repudiate her husband's quitclaim deed

and overturn CME's mortgage interest.

by itself, did not suffice.

Affirmed.
________

Her marriage to Ford,

-3-